Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1136332689.5052.263.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and ("Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 12:59 +0100, Michael Paesold wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > The --single-transaction mode would apply even if the dump was created > > > using an earlier version of pg_dump. pg_dump has *not* been altered at > > > all. (And I would again add that the idea was not my own) > > > > I assume you mean this: > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-12/msg00257.php > > > > I guess with the ALTER commands I don't see much value in the > > --single-transaction flag. I am sure others suggested it, but would > > they suggest it now given our current direction. > > I just want to add that --single-transaction has a value of it's own. There > were times when I wanted to restore parts of a dump all-or-nothing. > > This is possible with PostgreSQL, unlike many other DBM systems, because > people like Tom Lane have invested in ensuring that all DDL is working > without implicitly committing an enclosing transaction. > > Using pg_restore directly into a database, it is not possible to get a > single transaction right now. One has to restore to a file and manually > added BEGIN/COMMIT. Just for that I think --single-transaction is a great > addition and a missing feature. > > I think more people have a use-case for that. I did originally separate the --single-transaction patch for this reason. I think its a valid patch on its own and its wrapped and ready to go, with some deletions from the doc patch. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: